It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A few more questions for those that believe in the chemtrail conspiracy

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


And if they are releasing particles with the intent of manipulating climate, for instance reflecting sun?

I guess that would be done at higher levels right?




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


And if they are releasing particles with the intent of manipulating climate, for instance reflecting sun?

I guess that would be done at higher levels right?


As I mentioned before, cirrus clouds and artificial contrails do a better job than most materials due to their high albedo. This was pretty apparent in the days after 9/11 when all aircraft were grounded. No contrails meant there was a higher gap between the minimum and maximum temps as there was no cloud to reflect or trap in long wave radiation from the sun. There's a whole study on it online...need to find that link again



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Jeah I'm familisr with that study.

One thing I know for sure is that when air traffic was grounded in Europe due to the Iceland volcano, we had blue skies I hadn't seen since I was a kid.

That's what got me truly interested in the effect that air traffic has on the weather, and perhaps climate.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by Point of No Return]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by filosophia
I would hope that all chemtrails are actually contrails, but I fear that the chemtrails do not dissipate because obviously they have more chemicals intentionally shooting out of the exhaust as opposed to contrails being formed more or less naturally from water vapor off an engine (natural engine emission as opposed to intentional poisoning). So, contrails dissipate for the same reason exhaust from a diesel truck dissipates, because it is only a certain amount of vapor coming off.


Ah, but you forget that the upper atmosphere is a lot different than it is at the surface. The burning of hydrocarbons from aircraft and vehicles, emits both dust and water vapour. The basis behind contrail development is that the water product from aircraft fuels, undergoes a prcoess called sublimation, where water vapour skips the transition to its liquid phase, and is immediately turned into ice. This occurs due to the super cold environment up there.

If the temperature is cold enough, contrails can persist, regardless of humidity. The same can be said for natural cirrus clouds. Its rare for us to get high levels of humidity up there, even if they are present





I fear the military may be trying to devise a way to create clouds in order to combat global warming or some nonsense. I don't believe it will work, but with their brains pushed together, who knows what kind of nonsensical monster they will/can/have created.


Actually, other than snow, there is no better reflector of sunlight than ice based clouds, including contrails. They have a high albedo (which is the term given to a materials reflectability) and reflect over half of the incoming sunlight. So why would they have to use something else?



Basically, see number 2, because they are meant to act like clouds.


Ok, thats a fair point



Why is 8 year old official knowledge of 9/11 incorrect? Because they choose to ignore damaging information because their feeble minds can not comprehend something so sinister or evil.


Im a bit confused by that answer. Are you saying that because we do not believe in the existence of chemtrails, that we are feeble minded? Can you please clarify that?


I have seen contrails at high altitudes persist, but others that dissipate. So, if it is true they can persist, why do they do so at much lower levels? Do contrails persist at both high and low altitudes? Then how is that dependent upon altitude?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Here are two studies about the post-9/11 skies.


www-pm.larc.nasa.gov...
This explains the observation of a known number of contrails and the measured area and persistence.

www.celsias.com...

This article shows the temperature effects noticed might not be out of the ordinary, after comparison to the thirty year climate records.

Hopefully, neither one of these can ever be repeated.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


And if they are releasing particles with the intent of manipulating climate, for instance reflecting sun?

I guess that would be done at higher levels right?


"According to estimates by the Council on Foreign Relations, "one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide."[7]"

www.cfr.org...


"If found to be economically, environmentally and technologically viable, such injections could provide a "grace period" of up to 20 years before major cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions would be required, he concludes."

en.wikipedia.org...(geoengineering)



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by __rich__
 


I can't find the quote snippet in the CFR article you sourced.

The Wiki link seems incomplete.

About "sulphur" suspended in the atmosphere...what are your thoughts regarding the HUGE amounts of sulphur, and other particulates, that were recently spewed by the volcano in Iceland?

Certainly that event produced a heckuva lot more material than humans would be able to loft, using airplanes alone?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Teller et al concluded a cost of around 1 billion/yr to loft as much as the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by __rich__
 


Yah, Yah...

...and things I've read about Mt. Pinatubo was....its over-all impact on GLOBAL temperature changes was very, very minimal....

...I could scrounge around to find a link...or I guess anyone else could as well???



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by __rich__
 

Random quotes from Wiki with no context are supposed to prove a point?

Well, since you didn't, I'll comment on it. The trouble is, such injections have not been found to be economically, environmentally and technologically viable. Because very little research has been done on the economic, environmental, or technological aspects.

Here's a direct quote from the CFR article aluded to on wiki (I find it useful to go to the source rather than picking out a few choice phrases).


Despite years of speculation and vague talk, peer-reviewed research on geoengineering is remarkably scarce. Nearly the entire community of geoengineering scientists could fit comfortably in a single university seminar room, and the entire scientific literature on the subject could be read during the course of a transatlantic flight. Geoengineering continues to be considered a fringe topic.


Here's the article.
iis-db.stanford.edu...

Please make sure that the quote above is in context with the thrust of the article; that any geoengineering scheme would have to involve extreme caution, openness, and cooperation. And by all means, please look for anything that indicates that any geoengineering activities are already being undertaken.

[edit on 7/26/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


that any geoengineering scheme would have to involve extreme caution, openness, and cooperation.

We are talking about the Goverment here, right???
The ones that hide everything???



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I have to agree with what you say..

IF...I was going to spray the population with dangerous chemicals,
I would do it at night..

And if its as some say, to poison the population, then surely it would be easy to put in our food or water...



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by calstorm
I have heard you say before that the chemtrails are contrails and act the way they do due to the high elevation and humidity. I live in an area with extremely low humidity and I have seen them on day s with 12% and much much higher in the sky I have seen a plane with a contrail but the ones dispersing "chemtrails"appeared to be at a much lower elevation. if that you say is correct how can this be?


Humidity at ground level does not reflect the humidity in the upper air environment. So while it may be 12% humidity where you are, it may be much much higher in the upper troposphere. The key thing with contrail persistence is actually temperature, not humidty. If the temp is cold enough then contrails will persist with little or no humidity.

As for your query about the plane, how sure can you be that it was lower than the other plane? And also, if it were lower, the humidity content at that level may have been higher, even though the temperature wasnt as low as it was above, while the higher plane may have been at a slightly cooler temperature but not cool enough to form a contrail that persists without humidity.

Hope that makes some sense

I get what you are saying about the humidity, but I am talking in 105 degree weather. The contrail line was above the "chem line" it was pretty obvious. I am assuming the air would have been cooler at the higher elevations, but I could be wrong.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by calstorm
I get what you are saying about the humidity, but I am talking in 105 degree weather. The contrail line was above the "chem line" it was pretty obvious. I am assuming the air would have been cooler at the higher elevations, but I could be wrong.

Its the same as above, the ground temperature doesnt reflect the temperature at the upper levels

Here's an example, taken from the weather balloon sounding at King Khaled International Airport in Saudi Arabia



934.0 614 41.0 5.0 11 5.89 310 14 320.3 339.7 321.5
931.0 643 38.6 0.6 9 4.31 340 20 318.2 332.4 319.0
925.0 701 38.0 2.0 11 4.80 335 16 318.2 333.9 319.1
919.0 760 37.4 2.1 11 4.87 325 15 318.1 334.2 319.1
907.0 878 36.2 2.3 12 5.01 340 16 318.1 334.6 319.1
892.0 1028 34.7 2.6 13 5.20 330 19 318.1 335.1 319.1
850.0 1463 30.4 3.4 18 5.78 340 21 318.0 336.8 319.1
846.0 1504 30.0 3.3 18 5.77 340 21 318.0 336.8 319.1
817.0 1807 27.1 2.7 21 5.72 315 21 318.1 336.7 319.1
770.0 2321 22.1 1.7 26 5.64 300 12 318.1 336.5 319.2
700.0 3148 14.0 0.0 38 5.50 320 22 318.0 335.9 319.0
653.0 3728 9.1 -2.2 45 5.03 330 31 318.8 335.3 319.8
648.0 3792 8.6 -2.4 46 4.97 331 29 318.9 335.3 319.9
642.0 3869 10.6 -10.4 22 2.71 332 26 322.1 331.4 322.6
611.0 4278 8.0 -40.0 2 0.19 339 13 323.6 324.4 323.7
605.0 4358 7.3 -38.4 2 0.23 340 10 323.8 324.7 323.8
566.0 4899 2.7 -27.6 9 0.71 235 2 324.5 327.2 324.7
544.0 5220 -0.1 -21.1 19 1.31 179 4 324.9 329.7 325.2
500.0 5890 -3.3 -32.3 9 0.51 60 8 328.9 330.9 329.1
484.0 6147 -4.7 -36.7 6 0.34 70 10 330.3 331.7 330.4
469.0 6395 -3.9 -43.8 3 0.17 80 12 334.3 335.0 334.3
465.0 6463 -3.7 -45.7 2 0.14 88 14 335.3 335.9 335.4
454.0 6652 -4.3 -43.1 3 0.19 110 19 336.8 337.6 336.9
442.0 6863 -5.1 -40.3 4 0.26 95 17 338.5 339.6 338.6
438.0 6935 -5.3 -39.3 5 0.29 98 17 339.1 340.3 339.2
425.0 7169 -7.3 -39.6 6 0.29 110 19 339.5 340.7 339.6
400.0 7640 -11.3 -40.3 7 0.29 80 18 340.2 341.4 340.3
386.0 7907 -13.6 -41.8 7 0.25 65 20 340.7 341.7 340.7
376.0 8103 -15.3 -42.9 7 0.23 80 23 341.0 342.0 341.1
337.0 8923 -22.3 -47.6 8 0.15 75 23 342.2 342.9 342.3
333.0 9012 -23.1 -48.1 8 0.15 71 25 342.4 343.0 342.4
318.0 9347 -24.5 -53.5 5 0.08 55 31 344.9 345.3 344.9
300.0 9770 -26.3 -60.3 3 0.04 80 19 348.2 348.4 348.2
289.0 10039 -27.5 -61.5 2 0.03 75 17 350.2 350.4 350.2
284.0 10165 -28.1 -62.0 2 0.03 90 20 351.2 351.3 351.2
280.0 10267 -28.5 -62.5 2 0.03 89 21 352.0 352.1 352.0
251.0 11042 -34.9 -62.9 4 0.03 80 26 353.6 353.8 353.6
250.0 11070 -35.1 -63.1 4 0.03 80 26 353.7 353.9 353.8
222.0 11889 -42.3 -65.3 6 0.03 73 22 354.9 355.0 354.9
212.0 12199 -44.1 -67.2 6 0.02 70 21 356.7 356.8 356.7
206.0 12393 -45.3 -68.3 6 0.02 77 21 357.8 357.9 357.8
200.0 12590 -47.1 -68.1 7 0.02 85 21 358.0 358.1 358.0
191.0 12885 -49.5 -69.2 8 0.02 90 22 359.0 359.1 359.0
156.0 14179 -59.9 -74.0 14 0.01 80 23 362.6 362.7 362.6
150.0 14430 -61.9 -74.9 16 0.01 90 26 363.2 363.3 363.2
126.0 15483 -71.3 -80.3 25 0.01 112 35 364.8 364.8 364.8
123.0 15623 -72.2 -81.4 24 0.00 115 36 365.6 365.6 365.6



The third column is temperature, while the first is height. As you can see it was very hot at the surface, the temperature sitting at 41 degrees celsius. You will notice that the temperature has significantly dropped by the time we get to plane crusing altitidue, to -23 degrees celsius. This is the important data when it comes to determining contrail development and persistence



[edit on 27/7/2010 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


calstorm, I found a website that take the sort of raw data (similar to what OzWeatherman posted) in the United States, and interprets it into layperson format.

www.usairnet.com...

That is aviation-oriented, and it looks at various aviation weather resources, including winds aloft forecasts---which are themselves derived from weather baloon soundings.

Based on your description (105 degrees, low humidity) I'm guessing you might be in the high desert of California, versus the central valley area?...so I input Lancaster, CA into the site:

www.usairnet.com...

Airliners, and other jets, will be cruising well above 24,000 (FL240).

Looking at that particular day and time, you can see that overhead Lancaster, it is forecasted to be 0 degrees F at FL240. Today's temperature on the ground is forecast to be 96 F. EVEN IF the surface temp went up another ten degrees F, it would STILL be well below freezing at 24,000 feet...(although there won't be an exact linear change like that, anyway...)

BTW....here is the raw data format we pilots learn to read:

WJF 2113+21 1824+15 1823+08 1923-05 2031-18 216231 216739 206351

You see a total of eight data blocks there....usually there are nine. The readings at the lowest points measured (3,000 MSL) are omitted because of the ground elevation in Lancaster. In denver, for example, there will also be no data for 6,000 feet.

These data blocks reflect altitudes of (3,000, except as noted), 6,000, 9,000, 12,000, 18,000, 24,000, 30,000, 34,000 and 39,000.

The raw data for FL240 is "2031-18". That is read as "Wind 200 degrees @ 31 knots, temperature -18C" See how it matches the info in the web site? After it's converted into "American" units.


BTW....there's a handy way to convert C to F in your head, if you don't have a chart, or computer handy....

(It gets complicated when we're talking in negatives, so bear with me):

Let's take -18C and convert it. First, you double it...now it's -36.

SUBTRACT 10% from that...since it's in negative, that's the same as 'adding'...old school math, ya know...so: -36 PLUS 3.6 = -32.4

LAST step is to ADD 32 (because 32 F is freezing point of water). Adding 32 to -32.4 = 0.4 F. So, that's just about 0 degrees F.

Let's use an easier example...we KNOW that 15C = 59F already (trust me).

15 x 2 = 30.

30 less 10% (3) = 27.

27 + 32 = 59!

Easy, huh? (It can also be worked backwards...it's not exact, of course, but close enough in a pinch.)

















[edit on 27 July 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
There seems to be some reluctance for chemtrail believers to actually post here. We arent here to judge your knowledge, its simply so you can state your reasoning guys


[edit on 27/7/2010 by OzWeatherman]



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


That was not my intention, as I clearly stated in the OP

Take you "character assasination" elsewhere. I wouldnt expect too much from you anyway, all you do is avoid questions and label anyone that disagree with chemtrails as trolls. Every single thread you've posted on, you have attacked someone unprovoked. I didnt think I had a problem with you, but now its pretty clear that you never have anything to contribute to any thread you're active on, aprt from attaching labels to people that you know nothing about



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
I would hope that all chemtrails are actually contrails, but I fear that the chemtrails do not dissipate because obviously they have more chemicals intentionally shooting out of the exhaust as opposed to contrails being formed more or less naturally from water vapor off an engine (natural engine emission as opposed to intentional poisoning).


Poison in the exhaust? Are you saying they are adding something to the jet fuel to create poison chemtrails? I guess this would explain why people in every state and country report seeing chemtrails daily, yet there are not thousands of planes with special nozzles found anywhere - any plane can spray chemtrails if it's in the fuel, and they won't even know they are doing it!

Now please explain what chemicals can be mixed with jet fuel that will have an effect after combustion, while not effecting the combustion process.



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Ehm, it was you who was attacking me in the other thread, I made an ontopic comment to the OP, you replied to me with a rant remember?




That was not my intention, as I clearly stated in the OP


Jeah, the tone of your post said enough.



Take you "character assasination" elsewhere. I wouldnt expect too much from you anyway, all you do is avoid questions and label anyone that disagree with chemtrails as trolls.


Lies.

What question have I avoided in discussions that I entered? I am not someone to walk away from a discussion, have admitted to being wrong on many occasions. Who did I label as troll, and was it about not believing in chemtrails?

Btw, I'm still undecided to what's really going on, I never ever said that I believe that "chemtrails" are real.

Seems like you are the one trying to attack on character, with lies, and stuff you made up, without any corroberation.




Every single thread you've posted on, you have attacked someone unprovoked. I didnt think I had a problem with you, but now its pretty clear that you never have anything to contribute to any thread you're active on, aprt from attaching labels to people that you know nothing about


Is that so, I think you just don't see the provocations. And what is attacking?

I also tend to respond to ridicule of people that have different ideas, often by "skeptics", or severe cases of closemindedness, or suppresion of info.

Also, I've asked a lot of questions, I don't think anyone is worse off because of that.

I'm sure you will find that all very annoying, others may appreciate my contribution.

Just because you post some factual information about the weather, doesn't mean you are contributing much, I can find most of that on the net, without the added weatherman ego.











[edit on 27-7-2010 by Point of No Return]



new topics




 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join